Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!uknet!bcc.ac.uk!link-1.ts.bcc.ac.uk!ucgadkw
From: ucga...@ucl.ac.uk (Dominik Wujastyk)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.msdos.desqview
Subject: OS/2 as a replacement for DesqView?
Keywords: DesqView, OS/2, multitasking
Message-ID: <1992Jul03.094036.21693@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk>
Date: 3 Jul 92 09:40:36 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium
Lines: 38
I have a comfortable setup using DOS 5.0 and DesqView 386. There
are several little quirks, and the system crashes every so often,
but it comes up again without trouble on such occasions.
In other words, I can have Procomm downloading something in one
window, emTeX working away at something elsewhere, and be writing
a letter to someone using Signature in a third. Etc. A common
enough scenario, I expect. A sharp couple of taps to the Alt key
and I'm in another job.
Mostly I'm happy with DOS programs. I feel no need for a graphics
interface. Sometimes I need a program with more linear memory
than DOS allows, so I compile with gcc using go32. This has
given me a "big" diff, dvips, emTeX, PATGEN, and some others.
However, I am very aware that basically the tools I am using,
DOS+DesqView, are kludges where multitasking and "big" programming
are concerned, and I am attracted by the idea of a robust 32bit
system built from the ground up for multitasking DOS and other
programs. I don't seem to have any Windows programs yet, but
that may change, I suppose.
The question I have is this: is it worth getting some extra
memory (my disk is big enough) and switching to OS/2, just
for the multitasking and the 32-bit programme environment?
Or will I just be swapping one set of niggles for another?
The old adage "if it ain't broke don't fix it" is very much
in my mind, and my present system isn't broke on any strict
sense of the word.
I am especially interested in hearing from other DesqView users
who have gone over to OS/2. All the reviews seem to compare
OS/2 with Windows, and that isn't my starting point.
Many thanks,
Dominik
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!ub4b!news.cs.kuleuven.ac.be!blekul11!frmop11!
barilvm!bimacs!orenalex
From: orena...@bimacs.BITNET (Alex Oren)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 as a replacement for DesqView?
Keywords: DesqView, OS/2, multitasking
Message-ID: <4008@bimacs.BITNET>
Date: 5 Jul 92 21:38:06 GMT
References: <1992Jul03.094036.21693@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk> <12047@inews.intel.com>
Organization: Math department, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, ISRAEL
Lines: 24
First: I use OS/2. I love it.
After we get past the introduction, let's look at the facts.
As I understand, the original poster concidered OS/2 as a replacement
for *DV* for multitasking *DOS* programs.
I'm sure most of the readers can supply all kinds of PRO arguments so
I'll concentrate on the CON's.
All that I say here concerns 2.0 GA
OS/2 with less than 6M RAM is unusable. period.
OS/2 eats 20M-30M of disk space.
OS/2's DOS emulation is less than perfect. There are (very few, I admit)
some DOS programs which will not run in a DOS-window.
Other than that, i don't know.
I guess OS/2 is really a good platform *IF* you need it's power.
After all, It's only an OS...
Have fun,
Alex.
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!yale.edu!yale!gumby!wupost!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!
spssig.spss.com!uchinews!ellis!sip1
From: s...@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc
Subject: Re: OS/2 as a replacement for DesqView?
Keywords: DesqView, OS/2, multitasking
Message-ID: <1992Jul6.140729.12531@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: 6 Jul 92 14:07:29 GMT
Article-I.D.: midway.1992Jul6.140729.12531
References: <1992Jul03.094036.21693@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk> <12047@inews.intel.com>
<4008@bimacs.BITNET>
Sender: n...@uchinews.uchicago.edu (News System)
Reply-To: s...@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Dept. of Econ., Univ. of Chicago
Lines: 48
This probably belongs in .advocacy, but I'll play devil's advocate for
a bit:
In article <4...@bimacs.BITNET> orena...@bimacs.BITNET (Alex Oren) writes:
>First: I use OS/2. I love it.
>After we get past the introduction, let's look at the facts.
>As I understand, the original poster concidered OS/2 as a replacement
>for *DV* for multitasking *DOS* programs.
>I'm sure most of the readers can supply all kinds of PRO arguments so
>I'll concentrate on the CON's.
>All that I say here concerns 2.0 GA
>OS/2 with less than 6M RAM is unusable. period.
Correct, but so too does Desqview/X, which is the first release of
Desqview that supports a GUI. (Note that you can go WPS-less with
OS/2 2.0, in which case performance with 4 MB becomes acceptable, just
like Desqview.)
>OS/2 eats 20M-30M of disk space.
With applets and Win-OS/2, correct, but DOS+QEMM+Desqview (esp. /X) is
no slouch when it comes to disk space.
>OS/2's DOS emulation is less than perfect. There are (very few, I admit)
> some DOS programs which will not run in a DOS-window.
It is probably better than Desqview's given the specific DOS session
support, finer control over DOS parameters and session settings, etc.
Heck, even Desqview can run in an OS/2 VDM.
>Other than that, i don't know.
>I guess OS/2 is really a good platform *IF* you need it's power.
>After all, It's only an OS...
I should probably restate how I got interested in this operating
system a little over a year ago. I wanted to download files in the
background. (That's it!) One would think OS/2 would be overkill for
that sort of task. In fact it wasn't -- it's about the only thing on
the market which can reliably accomplish that feat.
A simple criterion, really. So why is it darn near impossible for
those other environments? (Key word is reliable.)
--
Get the OS/2 FREQ. ASKED QUESTIONS LIST | Timothy F. Sipples
from 128.123.35.151, anonymous ftp, | Internet: s...@ellis.uchicago.edu
directory pub/os2/all/faq, or from | IBM VNET Alias: SIPPLES AT BITNET
LISTS...@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP"). | Dept. of Econ., U. Chicago, 60637
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!wupost!bcm!lib!oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu!jmaynard
From: jmayn...@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: OS/2 as a replacement for DesqView?
Keywords: DesqView, OS/2, multitasking
Message-ID: <6870@lib.tmc.edu>
Date: 6 Jul 1992 18:46:02 GMT
References: <12047@inews.intel.com> <4008@bimacs.BITNET>
<1992Jul6.140729.12531@midway.uchicago.edu>
Sender: use...@lib.tmc.edu
Followup-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston
Lines: 50
Nntp-Posting-Host: oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu
(My machine runs OS/2 nearly full-time now; I spent $200 on DV/X before
getting OS/2. I figure I'm qualified to speak to both.)
(Oh, yeah: followups set to .advocacy, where this is cross-posted.)
In article <1992Jul6.140729.12...@midway.uchicago.edu> s...@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <4...@bimacs.BITNET> orena...@bimacs.BITNET (Alex Oren) writes:
>>OS/2 with less than 6M RAM is unusable. period.
>Correct, but so too does Desqview/X, which is the first release of
>Desqview that supports a GUI.
Actually, DV/X runs quite well in 4 MB, thank you. It runs, but not well, in
2.5.
>>OS/2 eats 20M-30M of disk space.
>With applets and Win-OS/2, correct, but DOS+QEMM+Desqview (esp. /X) is
>no slouch when it comes to disk space.
About 10 MB, actually.
>>OS/2's DOS emulation is less than perfect. There are (very few, I admit)
>> some DOS programs which will not run in a DOS-window.
>It is probably better than Desqview's given the specific DOS session
>support, finer control over DOS parameters and session settings, etc.
>Heck, even Desqview can run in an OS/2 VDM.
I haven't tried that, but this is where I think OS/2 has DV[/X] beat all
hollow: it provides far more protection between DOS programs than DV ever
thought of providing. Making DOS programs run well under OS/2 takes more work
than setting up a DV PIF, but the finer control requires more setup effort.
>I should probably restate how I got interested in this operating
>system a little over a year ago. I wanted to download files in the
>background. (That's it!) One would think OS/2 would be overkill for
>that sort of task. In fact it wasn't -- it's about the only thing on
>the market which can reliably accomplish that feat.
I don't have problems reliably doing lots of things under DV[/X]. Including
downloading. For that matter, it's quite common in the ham TCP/IP community
(the same folks who brazenly rip out their 8250s and replace them with 16550As
with wild abandon) to run KA9Q, talking on two or three serial channels at the
same time, while editing and compiling new versions of the stuff. Works fine.
I think DV/X has missed its window, and will be relegated to the "historical
curiosity" category eventually, but it was by far and away the best thing
around until OS/2 2.0 came along.
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmayn...@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu | adequately be explained by a .sig virus.
"[...] have you noticed how many people have joined you on the back of
Rosinante to help subdue this particular windmill?" -- Dan Herrick
Path: sparky!uunet!sun-barr!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!gatech!darwin.sura.net!
haven.umd.edu!decuac!pa.dec.com!news
From: reis...@sttng.mlo.dec.com (Jim Reisert)
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.misc,comp.os.msdos.desqview
Subject: Re: OS/2 as a replacement for DesqView?
Keywords: DesqView, OS/2, multitasking
Message-ID: <1992Jul7.205052.17271@PA.dec.com>
Date: 7 Jul 92 20:50:52 GMT
References: <1992Jul03.094036.21693@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk>
<1992Jul6.192055.17729@sbcs.sunysb.edu> <1992Jul6.203008.29774@burrhus.harvard.edu>
Sender: n...@PA.dec.com (News)
Reply-To: reis...@sttng.mlo.dec.com (Jim Reisert)
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation -- Maynard, MA
Lines: 18
Here's another one - try this with Windows or DESQview:
Start a download in one window. Now start copying floppies in another
window. Watch your download retry, or at best, watch the
characters/sec decrease. Not so in OS/2 - it barely flinched.
I used to use DESQview. OS/2 is clearly a win, if you have the
resources for it. I already had the 8MB RAM, but had to upgrade my
104MB drive to a 200MB variety.
- Jim
--
James J. Reisert Internet: reis...@sttng.enet.dec.com
Digital Equipment Corp. UUCP: ...decwrl!sttng.enet!reisert
146 Main Street Voice: 508-493-5747
Maynard, MA 01754 FAX: 508-493-0395